Connect with us

Published

on

The next front is rapidly emerging in the struggle between supporters and opponents of legal abortion, and that escalating conflict is increasing the chances that the issue will shape the 2024 election as it did last Novembers midterm contest.

President Joe Biden triggered the new confrontation with a flurry of recent moves to expand access to the drugs used in medication abortions, which now account for more than half of all abortions performed in the United States. Medication abortion involves two drugs: mifepristone followed by misoprostol (which is also used to prevent stomach ulcers). Although abortion opponents question the drugs safety, multiple scientific studies have found few serious adverse effects beyond headache or cramping.

Federal regulation of the use and distribution of these drugs by agencies including the FDA and the United States Postal Service has long been overshadowed in the abortion debate by the battles over Supreme Court nominations and federal legislation to ban or authorize abortion nationwide. But with a conservative majority now entrenched in the Court, and little chance that Congress will pass national legislation in either direction any time soon, abortion supporters and opponents are focusing more attention on executive-branch actions that influence the availability of the pills.

Read: The abortion backup plan no one is talking about

The reality of abortion care has been changing very, very rapidly, and now the politics are catching up with it, Celinda Lake, a Democratic pollster who served as one of Bidens advisers in 2020, told me.

Tens of thousands of anti-abortion activists will descend on Washington today for their annual March for Lifethe first since the Supreme Court last summer overturned Roe v. Wade, the 1973 decision that established a nationwide right to abortion. The activists will cheer the swift moves by some two dozen Republican-controlled states to ban or severely restrict abortion since the Court struck down Roe.

But even as abortion opponents celebrate, they are growing more frustrated about the increased reliance on the drugs, which are now used in 54 percent of U.S. abortionsup dramatically from less than one-third less than a decade ago, according to the Guttmacher Institute, a research group that supports abortion rights. With the overturning of Roe, [with] COVID, and with President Bidens loosening of the restrictions on these [drugs] there is a new frontier that everyone is pivoting to, Rebecca Parma, the legislative director for Texas Right to Life, a prominent anti-abortion group, told me.

George W. Bush and Donald Trump, the two Republicans who have held the presidency since the drugs were first approved under Democratic President Bill Clinton, in 2000, took virtually no steps to limit their availability. But conservative activists are already signaling that they will press the Republican presidential candidates in 2024 for more forceful action.

Our job is to make sure this becomes an issue that any GOP candidate will have to answer and address, Kristan Hawkins, the president of the anti-abortion group Students for Life of America, told me. No one can be ambivalent again; it will simply not be an option.

The challenge for Republicans is that the 2022 midterm elections sent an unmistakable signal of resistance to further abortion restrictions in almost all of the key swing states that tipped the 2020 presidential election and are likely to decide the 2024 contest. Would you really want to be Ron DeSantis or Donald Trump running in a close election saying, Im going to ban all abortion pills in Michigan or Pennsylvania right now? says Mary Ziegler, a law professor at UC Davis, who has written extensively on the history of the abortion debate.

Sunday is the 50th anniversary of the original Roe decision, and the Biden administration will mark the occasion with a defiant pro-abortion-rights speech from Vice President Kamala Harris in Florida, where GOP Governor DeSantis, a likely 2024 presidential contender, signed a 15-week abortion ban last April.

White House officials see access to abortion medication as the next battlefront in the larger struggle over the procedure, Jennifer Klein, the director of the White House Gender Policy Council, told me. She said she expects Republicans to mount more sweeping efforts to restrict access to the drugs than they did during the Bush or Trump presidencies. The reason youve seen both Democratic and Republican administrations ensure access to medication abortions is because this is the FDA following their evidence-based scientific judgment, she said. So what I think is different now is you are seeing some pretty extreme actions as the next way to double down on taking away reproductive health and reproductive rights.

Federal regulation of the abortion drugs has followed a consistent pattern, with Democratic presidents moving to expand access and Republican presidents mostly accepting those actions.

Read: The other abortion pill

During the 2000 presidential campaign, for instance, George W. Bush called the Clinton administrations initial approval of mifepristone wrong and said he worried it would lead to more abortions. But over Bushs two terms, his three FDA commissioners ignored a citizen petition from conservative groups to revoke approval for the drug. Under Barack Obama, the FDA formalized relatively onerous rules for the use of mifepristone. Physicians had to obtain a special certification to prescribe the drug, women had to meet with their doctor once before receiving it and twice after, and it could be used only within the first seven weeks of pregnancy.

The FDA loosened these restrictions during Obamas final year in office. It reduced the number of physician visits required to obtain the drugs from three to one and increased to 10 the number of weeks into a pregnancy the drugs could be used. The revisions also permitted other medical professionals, such as nurses, to prescribe the drugs if they received certification, and eliminated a requirement for providers to report adverse effects other than death. Trump didnt reverse any of the Obama decisions. He did side with conservatives by fighting a lawsuit from abortion-rights advocates to lift the requirement for an in-person doctors visit to obtain the drugs during the COVID pandemic. But by the time the Supreme Court ruled for the Trump administration in January 2021, Biden was days away from taking office. Within months, women seeking an abortion could consult with a doctor via telehealth and then receive the pills via mail.

On January 3 of this year, the FDA took another major step by allowing pharmacies to dispense the drugs. In late December, the Justice Department issued a legal opinion that the Postal Service could deliver the drugs without violating the 19th-century Comstock Act, which bars use of the mail to corrupt the public morals.

The paradox is that the impact of these rules, for now, will be felt almost entirely in the states where abortion remains legal. Obtaining abortion pills there will be much more comparable to filling any other prescription. But 19 red states have passed laws that still require medical professionals to be present when the drugs are administered, which prevents pharmacies from offering them despite the FDA authorization. And although the FDA has approved use of mifepristone for the first 10 weeks of pregnancy, medical professionals cannot prescribe the drugs in violation of state time limits (or absolute bans) on abortion. In terms of anti-abortion states, the Biden administrations actions have had basically no impact, Greer Donley, a University of Pittsburgh law professor who studies abortion law, told me in an email.

Although the red states have largely walled themselves off from Bidens efforts on medication abortion, conservatives have launched a multifront attempt to roll back access to the pills nationwide. Students for Life has filed another citizen petition with the FDA, arguing that doctors who prescribe the drugs must dispose of any fetal remains as meical waste. In a joint letter released last week, 22 Republican attorneys general hinted that they may sue to overturn the new FDA rules permitting pharmacies to dispense the drugs. In November, another coalition of conservative groups filed a lawsuit before a Trump-appointed judge in Texas seeking to overturn the original certification and ban mifepristone. Jenny Ma, the senior counsel at the Center for Reproductive Rights, says that decision could ultimately have a broader effect than even the Supreme Court ruling overturning Roe: This case, she told me, could effectively ban medication abortion nationwide. It means people in every state may not be able to get abortion pills.

Republicans will also ramp up legislative action against the pills, although their proposals have no chance of becoming law while Democrats control the Senate and Biden holds the veto pen. Republican Senator Cindy Hyde-Smith of Mississippi is planning to reintroduce her SAVE Moms and Babies Act, which would restore the prohibition against dispensing abortion drugs through the mail or at pharmacies.

From the May 2022 issue: The future of abortion in a post-Roe America

However these legal and legislative challenges are resolved, its already apparent that the 2024 GOP presidential field will face more pressure than before to propose executive-branch actions against the drugs. Thats going to be our clarion call in 2024, says Kristi Hamrick, a long-term social-conservative activist, who now serves as the chief strategist for media and policy at Students for Life.

Katie Glenn, the state-policy director at Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, told me that, at the least, the group wants 2024 Republican presidential candidates to press for restoring the requirement to report adverse consequences from the drugs. Former Vice President Mike Pence, a likely candidate, has already suggested that he will support a ban on dispensing the pills through the mail. But the anti-abortion movements long-term goal remains the same: ban mifepristone altogether. Hawkins shows the growing fervor GOP candidates will face when she says, This pill is a cancer that has now metastasized throughout our country.

Simultaneously, abortion-rights advocates are pushing the Biden administration to loosen restrictions even further. Medication abortion has been overregulated for far too long, Ma told me. Many advocates want the FDA to extend permitted use of mifepristone from 10 to 12 weeks, eliminate the requirement that the professionals prescribing the drugs receive a special certification, and begin the process toward eventually making the drug available over the counter.

The immediate question is whether the Biden administration will challenge the red-state laws that have stymied its efforts to expand access. Advocates have argued that a legal case can be made for national FDA regulations to trump state restrictions, such as the requirement for physicians to dispense the drugs. But Biden is likely to proceed cautiously.

We dont have a lot of answers because, frankly, states have not tried to do this stuff in hundreds of years, Ziegler, the author of the upcoming book Roe: The History of a National Obsession, told me. Even so, she added, its a reasonable assumption that this conservative-dominated Supreme Court would resist allowing the federal government to preempt state rules on how the drugs are dispensed.

These mirror-image pressures in each party increase the odds of a clear distinction between Biden (or another Democrat) and the 2024 GOP nominee over access to the drugs. Democrats are generally confident they will benefit from almost any contrast that keeps abortion prominent in the 2024 race. Some, like Lake, see access to the pills as a powerful lever to do that. The issue, she argues, is relevant to younger voters, who are much more familiar than older people with the growing use of medication abortion and are especially dubious that pharmacies can offer certain drugs in some states but not in others.

The impact of abortion on the 2022 election was more complex than is often discussed. As Ive written, in the red states that have banned or restricted the practice, such as Florida, Ohio, and Texas, there was no discernible backlash against the Republican governors or state legislators who passed those laws. But the story was different in the blue and purple states where abortion remains legal. In pivotal states including Arizona, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, a clear majority of voters said they supported abortion rights, and, according to media exit polls, crushing majorities of them voted against Republican gubernatorial candidates who pledged to restrict abortion. Those Democratic victories in the states likely to prove decisive again in 2024 have left many Republican strategists leery of pursuing any further constraints on abortion.

Whats clear now is that even as abortion opponents gather to celebrate their long-sought toppling of Roe, many of them wont be satisfied until they have banned the procedure nationwide. It is totally unacceptable for a presidential candidate to say, Its just up to the states now, Marilyn Musgrave, the vice president for government affairs at the Susan B. Anthony group, told me. We need a federal role clearly laid out by these presidential candidates. Equally clear is that abortion opponents now view federal regulatory actions to restrict, and eventually ban, abortion drugs as a crucial interim step on that path. The U.S. may seem in some ways to be settling into an uneasy new equilibrium, with abortion banned in some states and permitted in others. But, as the escalating battle over abortion medication makes clear, access to abortion in every state will remain on the ballot in 2024.

Continue Reading

US

Democrat senator Chris Van Hollen who met wrongly deported man Kilmar Abrego Garcia says photos of pair with margaritas are staged

Published

on

By

Democrat senator Chris Van Hollen who met wrongly deported man Kilmar Abrego Garcia says photos of pair with margaritas are staged

The Democrat senator who flew to meet the man wrongly deported to El Salvador has said photos of them with margaritas were staged by officials working for the country’s president.

Chris Van Hollen added that Kilmar Abrego Garcia, who was deported from the US last month, told him he has been moved from a notorious high-security prison in El Salvador to a detention centre with better conditions.

The deportation of Mr Garcia has become a flashpoint in the US, with Democrats casting it as a cruel consequence of Donald Trump’s disregard for the courts, while Republicans have criticised Democrats for defending him and argued his deportation is part of a larger effort to reduce crime.

Mr Garcia, a Salvadoran citizen who was living in Maryland, is being detained in the Central American country despite the US Supreme Court calling on the White House to facilitate his return home.

Trump officials have said Mr Garcia has ties to the violent MS-13 gang. However, Mr Garcia’s attorneys say the government has provided no evidence, and he has never been charged with any crime related to such activity.

Mr Van Hollen flew to El Salvador and met with Mr Garcia this week in an effort to help secure his return to America.

Chris Van Hollen and Kilmar Abrego Garcia, seen in a photo shared by El Salvador's president. Pic: Nayib Bukele on X
Image:
Chris Van Hollen and Kilmar Abrego Garcia, seen in a photo shared by El Salvador’s president. Pic: Nayib Bukele on X

Chris Van Hollen (R) speaks with Kilmar Abrego Garcia (L). Pic: Press Office Senator Van Hollen/AP
Image:
Van Hollen (right) says margaritas were later brought to the table. Pic: Press Office Senator Van Hollen/AP

Speaking to reporters at Washington Dulles International airport after returning to the US on Friday, Mr Van Hollen said: “As the federal courts have said, we need to bring Mr Abrego Garcia home to protect his constitutional rights to due process. And it’s also important that people understand this case is not just about one man.

“It’s about protecting the constitutional rights of everybody who resides in the United States of America.”

Mr Van Hollen added the Trump administration is “asserting a right to stash away residents of this country” in foreign prisons “without the semblance of due process that is the foundation of our constitutional order”.

Don’t let the PR battle cloud the real human story

What began as the plight of a Salvadoran man wrongly deported from the US to a notorious high-security prison in El Salvador has become a much broader debate.

The case of Kilmar Abrego Garcia now ranges from the extremely serious – questions over the rule of law, due process and a potential constitutional crisis – to the more curious matter of tequila-based cocktails.

There is a public relations battle going on over the images which emerged of Mr Abrego Garcia meeting Maryland Senator Chris van Hollen at a hotel in San Salvador.

In the first photos which were made public, on the social media account of El Salvador’s President Nayib Bukele, an ally of Donald Trump, the two men had cocktail glasses in front of them which he said were margaritas.

But when Senator van Hollen posted his account of the meeting, those glasses had vanished. So what’s this all about, and why does it matter?

The senator has now given his version of events, saying the glasses were placed there by an El Salvador government official to mock concerns about the conditions in the country’s prison – a photo op aimed at shifting the narrative around Mr Abrego Garcia’s detention in El Salvador.

Mr van Hollen also revealed El Salvador officials initially wanted the meeting to take place next to a swimming pool, to give an even more tropical backdrop to the encounter.

But at the end of the day, it’s not just about images, it’s not about public relations, it’s not even about margaritas. It’s about a 29-year-old father of three, detained in El Salvador, despite having never gone through due process in the US.

The senator also revealed Mr Garcia was brought from a detention centre to his hotel after initial requests to meet or speak with him were denied.

Mr Van Hollen said Mr Garcia told him he was “traumatised” after being detained at El Salvador’s notorious CECOT prison, but he had been moved to a “different facility” with better conditions nine days ago.

The senator said Mr Garcia told him he was worried about his family and that thinking about them was giving him “the strength to persevere” and to “keep going” under awful circumstances.

Mr Garcia’s wife, Jennifer, was at the news conference and wiped away tears as Mr Van Hollen spoke of her husband’s desire to speak to her.

Earlier, Mr Van Hollen had posted photos of himself meeting with Mr Garcia.

Chris Van Hollen speaks at Washington Dulles International Airport. Pic: AP
Image:
Chris Van Hollen speaks at Washington Dulles International Airport. Pic: AP

It came before El Salvador’s President Nayib Bukele shared his own images of the meeting, which he claimed showed the pair “sipping margaritas” in the “tropical paradise of El Salvador”.

In an apparent sarcastic remark, Mr Bukele wrote that Mr Garcia had “miraculously risen” from the “death camps”.

Giving an account of what he says happened when the photos were taken, Mr Van Hollen said: “We just had glasses of water on the table. I think maybe some coffee.

And as we were talking, one of the government people came over and deposited two other glasses on the table with ice. And I don’t know if it was salt or sugar round the top, but they looked like margaritas.

“If you look at the one they put in front of Kilmer, it actually had a little less liquid than the one in me in front of me to try to make it look, I assume like he drank out of it.

“Let me just be very clear. Neither of us touched the drinks that were in front of us.”

He added that people can tell he is telling the truth because if someone had sipped from one of the glass there would be a “gap” where the “salt or sugar” had disappeared.

Mr Van Hollen said the image shows the “lengths” the El Salvadorian president will go to “deceive people about what’s going on”.

“It also shows the lengths that the Trump administration and [President Trump] will go to, because when he was asked by a reporter about this, he just went along for the ride.”

Continue Reading

UK

Funeral delays: Bereaved family faces ‘stressful’ time after eight-week wait

Published

on

By

Funeral delays: Bereaved family faces 'stressful' time after eight-week wait

Changes to how death certificates are issued in England and Wales have made the grieving process more “stressful”, according to bereaved families.

Anne Short died on New Year’s Eve, only a few months after she was diagnosed with cancer.

Her son Elliot, 30, from Newport, South Wales, says the grieving process was made harder after having to wait eight weeks to hold her funeral.

“Quite frankly, it’s ridiculous, when you’re already going through all this pain and suffering as a family,” he told Sky News.

“You can’t move on, you can’t do anything, you can’t arrange anything, you can’t feel that they’re at peace, you can’t put yourself at peace, because of a process that’s been put in that nobody seems to know anything about at the moment.”

That process has been introduced by the government to address “concerns” about how causes of death were previously scrutinised, following high-profile criminal cases such as those of Harold Shipman and Lucy Letby.

Up until last September, causes of death could be signed off by a GP, but now they have to be independently scrutinised by a medical examiner, before a death certificate can be issued.

Anne Short
Image:
Anne Short

‘I felt helpless’

Mr Short said he was ringing “twice a day” for a progress update, but that it was “going through too many sets of hands”.

Until the death certificate was issued, Ms Short’s body could not be released into the care of the funeral director.

“The main stress for me was knowing that she was up there [at the hospital] and I couldn’t move her, so I felt helpless, powerless,” he said.

“I felt like I’d let her down in a lot of ways. I know now, looking back, that there’s nothing that we could have done, but at the time it was adding a lot of stress. I just wanted her out of there.”

Anne Short
Image:
Elliot Short had to wait eight weeks to hold his mother’s funeral

‘Something has to be done’

Mr Short fears there’s a risk the new process might defeat its purpose.

“There’s other people that I know that have lost since, where it’s been in a care home or something like that, where they haven’t been happy with the care they’ve had, but they haven’t raised that because you’re in this bubble of grief and you just want to get it done,” he said.

“Something has to be done about that because I think it just drags on the grief and there’s obviously a danger then of it being against the reasons why they’re trying to do it.”

Arrangements after the death of his father less than two years ago was a “much easier process”, according to Mr Short.

“I lost my father as well 15 months before, so we went through the process prior to this coming in and we had the death certificate, he died at home, but we had it within three days,” he added.

Elliot Short, 30
Image:
Elliot Short

‘State of limbo’

James Tovey is the sixth generation of his family running Tovey Bros, a funeral director in Newport.

He told Sky News that the delays were having a “huge impact” on the business and that the families they serve were being “left in a state of limbo” for weeks after their bereavement.

“I would say that most funerals will take place perhaps two to four weeks after the person’s passed away, whereas now it’s much more like four to six weeks, so it is quite a significant difference,” he said.

“It’s one thing on top of an already distressing time for them and we’re frustrated and upset for [the families] as much as anybody else and it’s just annoying that we can’t do anything about it.”

James Tovey is the sixth generation of his family to run Tovey Bros funeral directors in Newport, South Wales
Image:
James Tovey

Mr Tovey said that the reform was “very useful” and he remained supportive of it.

“It’s just the delays. I’m sure they can do something about that over time, but it’s just waiting for that to happen, and I wish that could be addressed sooner rather than later,” he added.

“It does put pressure on other people, it’s not just ourselves, it’s pressure on the hospitals, on crematoria, on the registrar service and everyone else involved in our profession.

“But of course all of us we’re there to serve the families, and we’re just upset for them and wish we could do more to help.”

James Tovey
Image:
The organisation representing funeral directors has called for “urgent action”

The National Association of Funeral Directors said some areas of England and Wales are experiencing much shorter delays than others, but has called for “urgent action”.

Rachel Bradburne, its director of external affairs, said the system was “introduced for all the right reasons” but that it was “not working as well as we need it to”.

“Funeral directors are relaying stories of delays, frustration, and bottlenecks on a daily basis, and urgent action is required to review and recalibrate the new system,” she added.

‘Unintended consequences’

Dr Roger Greene is the deputy chief executive of bereavement charity AtALoss.

He told Sky News that the delays were “one of the unintended consequences of what’s a well-intended reform of a system”.

“What has actually happened is that the number of deaths now requiring independent scrutiny has trebled,” he said.

“So in England and Wales in 2023, the last full year of data, there were nearly 200,000 deaths reported to a coroner, whereas there were 600,000 deaths.

“Now, what is the change in the process is that all deaths now need to be reported for independent scrutiny.”

Dr Roger Greene
Image:
Dr Roger Greene

Dr Greene said there may be ways the system could be “tweaked a little bit”, such as giving medical examiners the ability to issue an interim death certificate.

“We believe that people can process grief well if they’re given the opportunity and they’ve got a proper understanding,” he added.

“But the systems that we have in the country need to be able to work as well with that diversity of faith and culture.”

‘Vital improvements’

Jason Shannon, lead medical examiner for Wales, told Sky News he recognised “the importance of a seamless, accurate and timely death certification process”.

“Medical examiners are one part of the wider death certification process and were introduced to give additional independent safeguards as well as to give bereaved people a voice, which they hadn’t had before,” he added.

“Medical examiners have no role in determining where the body of a family’s relative is cared for and except in a minority of deaths where a coroner needs to be involved, that decision should be one that a family is fully empowered to make in a way that is best for them.”

A Welsh government spokesperson said they “would like to apologise to any families who have experienced delays in receiving death certificates”.

The government said it was working with the lead medical examiner and the NHS in Wales “to understand where the delays are” and how to provide bereaved families with “additional support”.

Read more from Sky News:
Families feel impact of spiralling funeral costs
Calls for funeral sector to be regulated

A spokesperson for the Department of Health and Social Care said it recognised there were “some regional variations in how long it takes to register a death”.

They added that the changes to the death certification process “support vital improvements to patient safety and aim to provide comfort and clarity to the bereaved”.

Continue Reading

UK

‘Andrew Tate phenomena’ surges in schools – with boys refusing to talk to female teacher

Published

on

By

'Andrew Tate phenomena' surges in schools - with boys refusing to talk to female teacher

Social media influencers are fuelling a rise in misogyny and sexism in the UK’s classrooms, according to teachers.

More than 5,800 teachers were polled as part of the survey by the NASUWT teaching union, and nearly three in five (59%) of teachers said they believe social media use has contributed to a deterioration in pupils’ behaviour.

The findings have been published during the union’s annual conference, which is taking place in Liverpool this weekend.

One motion that is set to be debated at the conference calls on the union’s executive to work with teachers “to assess the risk that far-right and populist movements pose to young people”.

Andrew Tate was referenced by a number of teachers who took part in the survey, who said he had negative influence on male pupils.

One teacher said she’d had 10-year-old boys “refuse to speak to [her]…because [she is] a woman”.

Another teacher said “the Andrew Tate phenomena had a huge impact on how [pupils at an all-boys school] interacted with females and males they did not see as ‘masculine'”.

While another respondent to the survey said their school had experienced some incidents of “derogatory language towards female staff…as a direct result of Andrew Tate videos”.

Last month, Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer hosted a discussion in Downing Street on how to prevent young boys from being dragged into a “whirlpool of hatred and misogyny”.

The talks were with the creators of Netflix drama Adolescence, which explored so-called incel culture.

Read more from Sky News:
Former Rochdale footballer dies aged 36
Two Britons among four killed in cable car crash

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Starmer meets Adolescence creators

‘An urgent need for action’

Patrick Roach, the union’s general secretary, said “misogyny, racism and other forms of prejudice and hatred…are not a recent phenomenon”.

He said teachers “cannot be left alone to deal with these problems” and that a “multi-agency response” was needed.

“There is an urgent need for concerted action involving schools, colleges and other agencies to safeguard all children and young people from the dangerous influence of far-right populists and extremists,” Mr Roach added.

👉 Listen to Sky News Daily on your podcast app 👈

A spokesperson for the Department for Education (DfE) said: “Education can be the antidote to hate, and the classroom should be a safe environment for sensitive topics to be discussed and where critical thinking is encouraged.

“That’s why we provide a range of resources to support teachers to navigate these challenging issues, and why our curriculum review will look at the skills children need to thrive in a fast-changing online world.”

Continue Reading

Trending